Problem 1:

A study of 11,160 alcohol drinkers on university campuses revealed:

Never Occasional Frequent Total

Trouble with Police 71 154 398 623
No Trouble with Police 4992 2808 2737 10537
Total 5063 2962 3045 11160

A. Null Hypothesis H0: Binge drinking and trouble with police are independent variables.

B. Alternative Hypothesis H1: They are not independent.

C. The level of significance a: 0.025

D. The degrees of freedom:

(number of rows – 1) x (number of columns – 1) = (2-1) x (3-1) = 1 x 2 = 2

E. The Test Statistics:

F. The Critical Value: 7.38

G. Decision: Reject the null hypothesis

Problem 2:

Canada has universal health care. The United States does not but often offers more
elaborate treatment to patients with access. How do the two systems compare in treating heart
attacks? Researchers compared random samples of U.S. and Canadian heart attack patients. One
key outcome was the patients’ own assessment of their quality of life relative to what it had been
before the heart attack. Here are the data for the patients who survived a year:

Quality of Life Canada United States Total

Much better 75 541 616
Somewhat better 71 498 569
About the same 96 779 875
Somewhat worse 50 282 332
Much worse 19 65 84
Total 311 2165 2476

Is there a significant difference between the two distributions of quality-of-life ratings?

Carry out an appropriate test at the a = 0.01 level.
A. Null hypothesis H0: There is no difference in the distribution of quality of life for patients
who have suffered a heart attack in Canada and the U.S.

B. Alternative hypothesis H1: There is a difference in the distribution of quality of life for
patients who have suffered a heart attack in Canada and the U.S.

C. The level of Significance a: 0.01

D. Degrees of Freedom:

(number of rows – 1) x (number of columns – 1) = (5-1) x (2-1) = 4 x 1 = 4

E. Test Statistics:
 F. The critical value: 13.28

G. Decision: Do not reject the null hypothesis

Problem 3:
Students at Virginia Tech studied which vehicles come to a compete stop at an
intersection with four-way stop signs, selecting at random cars to observe. They looked at several
factors to see which were associated with coming to a complete stop.
Single vehicle Lead Vehicle Following Vehicle Total
Complete Stop 151 38 76 265
Not Complete Stop 25 4 22 51
Total 176 42 98 316

A. Null hypothesis H0: There is no association between the arrival position of the vehicle and
whether or not it comes to a complete stop.

B. Alternative hypothesis H1: There is an association between the arrival position of the
vehicle and whether or not it comes to a complete stop.

C. The level of significance: 0.05

D. Degrees of Freedom:

(number of rows – 1) x (number of columns – 1) = (2-1) x (3-1) = 1 x 2 = 2

E. Test Statistics:

F. The critical value: 5.99

G. Decision: Do not reject the null hypothesis